More details were just released on the Redistricting MN Party this Tuesday:

Minnesota politicos are anxious for the new redistricting lines, and they are turning that anxiety into energy. On Tuesday, February 21^st at 7:00 PM some of the state’s top activists, conservative bloggers and elected officials will come together and publicly discuss the new district lines.

Event Sponsors include, The LateDebate Radio, AM 1280’s Northern Allaince Radio Network, American Citizens for Economic Freedom (ACEF), and VOICES of Conservative Women.  Poor Richards Commonhouse in Bloomington will serve as a venue to a panel of top political pundits who will dissect how Minnesota arrived at the new district lines and analyze what it means for those who will be seeking state offices in November.

The panel includes the following individuals:

• Representative Sarah Anderson (R-43A), House Author of the GOP Map
• Professor Kent Kaiser, Northwestern College Communications Professor, Author, Former vice Chairman of Draw The Line Minnesota
• David Fitzsimmons, Wright County Chairman, CD 6 Chairman, Emmer for Governor Campaign Manager, Bachmann for President MN Director, Gingrich for President MN Director

Anderson, Kaiser and Fitzsimmons will break down party advantages, swing districts and who is most vulnerable due to new district lines.

Peter Vesseness of ACEF will be moderating the event which is expecting (Enter number of people here) dozens to attend.

Event Details:

• Event Coordinators: Erik Radtke, Delegate Scott County GOP and CD2 Deputy Chair in partnership with Scott County GOP Delegate and political writer Erin Haust.
• Time: Tuesday, February 21st, 7:00 PM
• Place: Poor Richard's Commonhouse, Bloomington
• Address: 8301 Normandale Boulevard, Bloomington MN 55438
• Admission to the event is free of charge

Dr. Kent Kaiser of St. Paul is an Associate Professor of Communication at Northwestern College.  An author and columnist, he is a former vice chair of the Citizens Redistricting Commission for Draw The Line Minnesota. Previously, he served as the communications and voter outreach director in the office of the Minnesota Secretary of State.  While with the Secretary of State’s office, he served as liaison to the U.S. Census Bureau and on the boards of Kids Voting Minnesota and Kids Voting St. Paul.

David Fitzsimmons of Cokato currently servers as Minnesota Director of Gingrich for President, Chairman of the Wright County Republicans, Chairman of Minnesota’s 6^th Congressional District Republicans, Co-Chair of the Republican Party of Minnesota’s BPOU Committee, (and in his “spare time” helps run the family pork business). As an activist, Fitzsimmons has served as Minnesota Director for Bachmann for President, Campaign Manager for Emmer for Governor and Constitutional Political Director for the Republican Party of Minnesota.

Representative Sarah Anderson (R) 43A of Plymouth serves as Chair of the House Redistricting Committee. She is Chief Author of House File 1426 & 1425 which are better known as the proposed GOP Maps that were vetoed by Governor Dayton. Representative Anderson is currently serving in her third term.

Agenda

6:00 Set up

Microphone checks

Registrations table

Multimedia/Powerpoint test

7:00 Meet and Mingle, Press availability

7:30 Kick off – Erik Radtke,

- Thank and recognize sponsors

- Encourage Poor Richard’s Patronage

- Introduce Peter Vessenes, MC

7:40 Welcome – Peter Vessenes

- Opening remarks

- Invite federal candidates to say hello

- Encourage Poor Richard’s Patronage

- Introduce Panelist

7:50 Panel

            - Explain context and history of how we got here today

            - Editorialize and share story lines of what we see in the new maps

            - Discuss constructive action items now that we can move forward

            - Audience Questions

8:45ish Meet and Mingle, Press availability

It's not often that I agree with statements that come out of Mr. Obama's mouth. But in this just released ad, the National Republican Senatorial Committee reminds us repeatedly of one that I agree with and hope for.

There's disagreement over the Super Bowl Chrysler ad featuring Clint Eastwood as to whether it was political or not. The ad may have inspired some Americans, but also inspired some parody treatment:

Via The Blaze:

Reason Magazine got in on the fun, too. The group produced a similar mock video poking fun at Madonna, Lady Gaga, the auto bailout and plenty more. Here’s some of the hilarious transcript:

It’s halftime.

Both teams are listening to a Madonna performance that sounds eerily similar to a Lady Gaga song they’ll hear 10 years from now.

It’s halftime in America too.

People are out of work and they’re hurting.

And they’re wondering where all their money went.

Well, $12.5 billion of it went to Chrysler. In the form of a bailout.

I agree with friend Ben who commented on my Facebook post with the original ad, "Halftime, time to change the quarterback."

This just in from James O'Keefe and Project Veritas by way of Roger Simon at PJ Media:

On the day of the Minnesota Caucus, shocking video from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas – broken here first at PJ Media – shows how easy it is to register NFL stars Tim Tebow, Tom Brady and practically anybody else to vote in that state.

No identification of any sort is needed, just a name! In fact, you can take 20 application forms home, fill them in, check the “no ID” slot and batch register people in absentia. Even local election officials are dismayed with the complete lack of authentication of any sort. On the video, they admit “We’re not the police.”

The above version is ten minutes. Full uncut one-hour version is coming shortly. Check back here.

Minnesota voter registration form – note third slot for registering without identification.

If you can help in the voter integrity effort here in Minnesota, Please contact Janet Beihoffer.

Post from PJ Media

From Our Local Ag Supplier:

ONE OF OUR CUSTOMERS GAVE ME AN EXPLANATION OF OUR NATIONAL DEBT IN SIMPLE ENGLISH.

• United States Tax Revenue ------------------------------------- $ 2,170,000,000,000 
• Federal Budget ------------------------------------------------------- 3,820,000,000,000 
• New Debt Added This Year- --------------------------------------- 1,650,000,000,000 
• National Debt -------------------------------------------------------- 16,271,000,000,000 
• Recent Budget Cut ------------------------------------------------------- 38,500,000,000 

NOW REMOVE THE 8 ZEROS AND LET'S PRETEND IT'S A HOUSEHOLD BUDGET

• Annual Family Income ----------------------------------------------------------- $ 21,700
• Money the Family Spends Per Year -------------------------------------------- 38,200
• Annual Debt Added to Credit Cards -------------------------------------------- 16,500
• Old Credit Card Debt ------------------------------------------------------------- 162,710
• Family Budget Cut ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 385

OUR POLITICIANS ARE PROUD OF THE RECENT BUDGET CUT, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO "SQUAT."

You have to admit, this guy knows his fertilizer.

I was out of town for Mitt Romney's appearance and missed his glitterbombing, but was present when Michele Bachmann got spangled at the RightOnline conference last year. Most disturbing to me again was how easy it was for the tossers to get such close access to elected officials and candidates. And again I'll ask: what if that wasn't glitter they were throwing — and where's the security?

In a Star Tribune editorial Thursday, the writer brings a possible security scenario that wouldn't bode well on future confetti-throwers:

Further glitterings, especially of presidential candidates, place everyone at campaign rallies at risk. Security officers must make instantaneous judgments about suspicious-looking people who get close to the candidates and their families. Whether it's highly trained Secret Service officers or local law enforcement, it's incredibly difficult in those split-seconds to distinguish someone drawing a weapon from someone pulling out a hidden bag of confetti.

It's not hard to imagine an anxious officer firing a gun, especially when there's often no weapons screening of early campaign crowds. That the activists were able to get so close to Romney and his family Wednesday demonstrates how vulnerable the candidates are and why security is edgy.

Besides the security risk, how does this help the glitterati's goal of acceptance and tolerance when they are perpetuating a form of bullying?

Glittering's mean-spiritedness only reinforces those who oppose gay rights, and it does nothing to win converts from those still on the fence. Activists need to ditch the dust. This is a risky, losing strategy.

If the glitterati thinks they're exercising free speech, Mark at Mr. Dilettante's Neighborhood boils it down to what it really is — assault:

The Star Tribune devotes 405 words on its editorial page to caviling about the moron who dumped glitter on Mitt Romney on Wednesday. He's the same moron who dumped pennies on Tom Emmer. You can read the editorial if you want here.

Lemme boil it down for you. This isn't a First Amendment issue. This guy is assaulting people. There is ample video evidence of his guilt. Arrest him, prosecute him and throw his butt in jail, preferably for a long time.

Up twinkles on all points.

The old saying "the truth will out" means that no secret can be kept forever. The question before us, however, is whether or not a secret can be kept long enough for someone to be elected President of the United States, and unfortunately we already know the answer. I am certain that had the truth of Barack Obama's agenda been widely known he would never have been elected. In particular, had we known about the ominous threats to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness contained in that abomination known as Obamacare , we surely would have elected somebody – ANYBODY – but Obama. Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans want Obamacare repealed and the overwhelming majority of Republicans want it repealed outright. So how can it possibly be that Republicans seem on the verge of selecting as their 2012 standard-bearer a candidate – Mitt Romney – that many suspect of not wanting outright repeal, and at best only willing to tinker around the edges of it?   I cannot imagine Mitt Romney being our nominee, if that were the truth and it became known.

So what is the truth? Well, there is a video over at Let Freedom Ring blog that gives one pause. In it, Mr. Romney says, "There’s a lot of waste in our Department of Defense like there is in the rest of government.  I’m gonna go after that waste. And I’m gonna take that waste and go pay for Obamacare."  It doesn't seem as if he simply made a gaffe or slip of the lip (he supposedly doesn't make them at all), but were that the case one would have expected an immediate rush to the microphone by staff to explain away this obvious double error – cutting defense to fund Obamacare.  Having raised the issue however, one then sees other clues to what the truth may be. 

1) Mr. Romney has never repeated his observation of a few years back that there were a number of serious flaws in Romneycare, and he continues to defend what he did in Massachusetts, the model for Obamacare, and says that should be the model for ALL the states.  

2) Mr. Romney's healthcare advisor Norm Coleman says that Obamacare will never be repealed, and he isn't contradicted by the campaign, either. 

3) Mr. Romney's campaign website says that on his first day in office he will "grant waivers to all 50 states."  That sounds good until you recognize that these waivers are only good for one year and apply ONLY to government employee health insurance plans.  The massive disruption to private plans, including millions of people being tossed off of their employer plans, while everybody's costs go up, Medicare gets cut and massive new taxes and death panels go into place, would still happen right on schedule.  

4) That same page, to his credit, says that he wants to "repeal and replace Obamacare," but the problem here is what he intends to replace it WITH.  It would appear from his statement that "states and individuals" hold the solution what he really intends is to implement Romneycare in all 50 states, by federal fiat, and it is hard to see how that is significantly better than the Obamacare we have now.

So, there you have it.  It is said that "the truth shall set you free," but you must first realize that "the truth is where you find it."  Hopefully we find it and set ourselves free before it's too late.

"So Derek, What do you think of the Republican candidates?" [I should note my friend although from the old country despises commies and is a solid conservative—he has lived in America for over 20 years.]
 
My relpy to him below was met with his agreement and he added he could not stand Newt:

I don't like any of them. Newt and Mitt are both big government progressives posing as conservatives.
 
Sanatorium is dull as toast, has no money or ground game and although a conservatibve is also prone to seeing government as the answer to problems and not the problem itself. He has no chance in the primary but he has gotten much better on the stump and is good at pointing out many of Mitt and Newt's flaws.
 
Paul has just the right plan for our domestic spending problems, but is a disaster on foreign policy and is as anti-charismic as any candidate I've seen, also saddled with his closet of quirks and radioactive positions.
 
I liked Bachmann but it became obvious early on she had no chance.
 
Romney has had this primary locked up since before Iowa. I will support him of course, but reluctantly. Pray for a strong VP candidate.
 
Can he beat Obumble? Possibly...best chance of anyone. But a centrist will not be enough to turn us away from 100+ years of progressive drift and anti-business policies. The cold war is long over but the commies and leftists have been eating the republic by inches successfully for decades.

Derek

Thanks to Dave Thul for pointing us to Walter Hudson and a discussion of the Great Judicial Debate of 2012.  If you haven’t heard of it, welcome to the club, and you’ve just made my point.  See those two great pieces and learn what the two sides are.  I haven’t chosen a side, but I find Mr. Thul’s logic favoring “MSRE” (merit selection, retention election) for judges uncompelling at best.  The alternative of direct contested elections, while flawed, is an improvement over the current situation and does not require a MN constitutional amendment to enact.  That seems a reasonable conservative position, though still not perfect in practice.

One could easily point out that most people don't pay enough attention to judicial races to make an intelligent choice, even when the election is contested. But any implication that the "D or R" does not convey sufficient information runs counter to that same argument, since it may be the only piece of information the voter has.  Right now the only piece of information the voter has is the "incumbent" label on the ballot, and that ought to be removed.  MSRE solves the problem of uninformed voters by simply eliminating the voters from the process.

Our Constitution says we elect judges. The MSRE system has NO judges elected.  If it's a bad idea to elect judges, change the Constitution to appoint them, require confirmation and be done, just like the federal courts. Maybe give them a fixed term and require them to be re-appointed. That's just as good as MSRE, and more transparent.

If you don't want parties involved, then recognize that the MSRE system GUARANTEES that partisan politics is involved because of who selects the "next qualified candidate," and because nothing really stops the political parties from campaigning against sitting "nonpartisan" judges.  Look at Wisconsin.

That neither major party commands a majority of the electorate is not a reason to eliminate all partisan labels or influence. The "independents," generally speaking, are people who aren't paying attention.  I don't want our government selected by them.  If they aren't sufficiently informed about a contested judicial election, why would they be more informed about an uncontested retention election?  At least a contest forces people to choose sides, one way or another, and competition is a good thing, right?

We hear concern that judges will be partisan activists rather than objective jurists, but what do we have now?  "Nonpartisan" does not mean unbiased or even competent.  "Good behavior" ought to be defined by the people, by voting either for a judge or for his opponent.  Selections by politicians would be MORE likely to be made on the basis of partisan political considerations.

The selection commission that is at the core of MSRE might be fine in a vacuum, but in the real world where the governor is far-left DFL, the legislative minority DFL is given equal weight to the GOP majority, and the current Supreme Court could be considered left-leaning for having fought against election by the voters, the deck is already stacked and could probably never be un-stacked.  It would be one thing if the replacement for a judge unseated in a retention election was the "next qualified candidate" but it isn't.  It is the candidate selected by the Governor from a list of "qualified" candidates, which is pretty much what happens now, 90% of the time.  Except under MSRE it would be 100% of the time.

Finally, I don't like wars, either, but to simply surrender because "you can't win," even if true, is hardly a solution to the problem of aggression by superior force.  Maybe we have to fight smarter, but we do have to fight.

It seems like a few small reforms, like removing the word "incumbent" from judicial ballots and requiring that judges not retire just before their term ends, thus setting up a political appointee as the replacement and incumbent, would make our system of electing judges better, without a constitutional amendment making them worse.